British politics

[ebandit]

try google...i never mentioned eu commission

Mark L

 

[Amsterhammer]

This is awesome! A reader's comment under a pseudonym in the Guardian.

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” … why? why not the formal ones straight away? … he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

 

[rhubroma]

Anyway wouldn't want to be Sky on the roads of France now.

 

[blutto]

Re:

This is awesome! A reader's comment under a pseudonym in the Guardian.

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” … why? why not the formal ones straight away? … he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

....not triggering Article 50 would be awesome for who exactly....well as we have already discussed here it would "save the youth " , who btw don't give a fukc....and it would also save the highly inflated salaries of this corrupt usurious lot who have a lot of dog in this fight....

"Brexit defeated an overwhelming array of what Zygmunt Bauman defined as the global elites of liquid modernity; the City of London, Wall Street, the IMF, the Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), major hedge/investment funds, the whole interconnected global banking system.

The City of London, predictably, voted Remain by over 75%. An overwhelming $2.7 trillion is traded every day in the “square mile”, which employs almost 400,000 people. And it’s not only the square mile, as the City now also includes Canary Wharf (HQ of quite a few big banks) and Mayfair (privileged hang out of hedge funds).

The City of London – the undisputed financial capital of Europe — also manages a whopping $1.65 trillion of client assets, wealth literally from all over the planet. In Treasure Islands, Nicholas Shaxson argues, “financial services companies have flocked to London because it lets them do what they cannot do at home”.

Unbridled deregulation coupled with unrivalled influence on the global economic system amount to a toxic mix. So Brexit may also be interpreted as a vote against corruption permeating England’s most lucrative industry.

Things will change. Drastically. There will be no more “passporting”, by which banks can sell products for all 28 EU members, accessing a $19 trillion integrated economy. All it takes is a HQ in London and a few satellite mini-offices. Passporting will be up for fierce negotiation, as well as what happens to London’s euro-denominated trading floors."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/why-the-uk-said-bye-bye-to-the-eu/

....so yeah lets go to the ramparts and save those poor souls slaving away in the global banking industry working as hard as they do to help the common man in any way they can....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re:

Anyway wouldn't want to be Sky on the roads of France now.

.... ...most excellent point...chapeau...

Cheers

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re: Re:

....not triggering Article 50 would be awesome for who exactly....well as we have already discussed here it would "save the youth " , who btw don't give a fukc....and it would also save the highly inflated salaries of this corrupt usurious lot who have a lot of dog in this fight....

Cheers

What I found awesome, dear boy, was the mind that put that together.

It will certainly be fascinating to see when Article 50 is officially invoked, and by whom. Particularly in view of all the signs/signals from the Euro side urging haste.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

This is awesome! A reader's comment under a pseudonym in the Guardian.

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” … why? why not the formal ones straight away? … he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

....not triggering Article 50 would be awesome for who exactly....well as we have already discussed here it would "save the youth " , who btw don't give a fukc....and it would also save the highly inflated salaries of this corrupt usurious lot who have a lot of dog in this fight....

"Brexit defeated an overwhelming array of what Zygmunt Bauman defined as the global elites of liquid modernity; the City of London, Wall Street, the IMF, the Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), major hedge/investment funds, the whole interconnected global banking system.

The City of London, predictably, voted Remain by over 75%. An overwhelming $2.7 trillion is traded every day in the “square mile”, which employs almost 400,000 people. And it’s not only the square mile, as the City now also includes Canary Wharf (HQ of quite a few big banks) and Mayfair (privileged hang out of hedge funds).

The City of London – the undisputed financial capital of Europe — also manages a whopping $1.65 trillion of client assets, wealth literally from all over the planet. In Treasure Islands, Nicholas Shaxson argues, “financial services companies have flocked to London because it lets them do what they cannot do at home”.

Unbridled deregulation coupled with unrivalled influence on the global economic system amount to a toxic mix. So Brexit may also be interpreted as a vote against corruption permeating England’s most lucrative industry.

Things will change. Drastically. There will be no more “passporting”, by which banks can sell products for all 28 EU members, accessing a $19 trillion integrated economy. All it takes is a HQ in London and a few satellite mini-offices. Passporting will be up for fierce negotiation, as well as what happens to London’s euro-denominated trading floors."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/why-the-uk-said-bye-bye-to-the-eu/

....so yeah lets go to the ramparts and save those poor souls slaving away in the global banking industry working as hard as they do to help the common man in any way they can....

Cheers

The "corrupt usurious lot" contribute well over a hundred billion pounds per year in gross value added to the UK economy. And about 20 billion in tax.

Edit: and 20 billion is a figure on a conservative side, because using broader measures the number can be 3 times higher

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

This is awesome! A reader's comment under a pseudonym in the Guardian.

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” … why? why not the formal ones straight away? … he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

....not triggering Article 50 would be awesome for who exactly....well as we have already discussed here it would "save the youth " , who btw don't give a fukc....and it would also save the highly inflated salaries of this corrupt usurious lot who have a lot of dog in this fight....

"Brexit defeated an overwhelming array of what Zygmunt Bauman defined as the global elites of liquid modernity; the City of London, Wall Street, the IMF, the Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), major hedge/investment funds, the whole interconnected global banking system.

The City of London, predictably, voted Remain by over 75%. An overwhelming $2.7 trillion is traded every day in the “square mile”, which employs almost 400,000 people. And it’s not only the square mile, as the City now also includes Canary Wharf (HQ of quite a few big banks) and Mayfair (privileged hang out of hedge funds).

The City of London – the undisputed financial capital of Europe — also manages a whopping $1.65 trillion of client assets, wealth literally from all over the planet. In Treasure Islands, Nicholas Shaxson argues, “financial services companies have flocked to London because it lets them do what they cannot do at home”.

Unbridled deregulation coupled with unrivalled influence on the global economic system amount to a toxic mix. So Brexit may also be interpreted as a vote against corruption permeating England’s most lucrative industry.

Things will change. Drastically. There will be no more “passporting”, by which banks can sell products for all 28 EU members, accessing a $19 trillion integrated economy. All it takes is a HQ in London and a few satellite mini-offices. Passporting will be up for fierce negotiation, as well as what happens to London’s euro-denominated trading floors."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/why-the-uk-said-bye-bye-to-the-eu/

....so yeah lets go to the ramparts and save those poor souls slaving away in the global banking industry working as hard as they do to help the common man in any way they can....

Cheers

The "corrupt usurious lot" contribute well over a hundred billion pounds per year in gross value added to the UK economy. And about 20 billion in tax.

....and lest we forget they were a main cause in vapourizing how much money in that last melt down ?....there are a great many awful ways to make money but in the final analysis the ends never excuse the means....so yeah the money is good but ?....

....and the fact remains they are a corrupt usurious lot....if you want to sleep with them that is entirely your prerogative....just mind the fleas and the stench....

....might be a good idea to perhaps get back to wealth creation ( like actually building things ) as opposed to speculative gambling which ultimately is just a road to ruin....

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

The fear of the elderly and rural workers prevailed. The gap between those who profit from globalization and those who are the inert recipients of its consequences is too large.

At any rate, let's see how the Brexit crew actually handles the consequences.

 

[blutto]

.....here are some comments from the peanut gallery...a fun little jaunt amid the post Brexit apocalypse...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/a-blow-for-peace-and-democracy-why-the-british-said-no-to-europe/

The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media.

The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centrepiece of modern “globalisation”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicised civil servants.

The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as “neoliberalism”.

The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor.

Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC. During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about “leaving Europe”, as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland.

On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. “Well,” he said to “Lord” Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, “why do these people want it so badly?” The “these people” are the majority of Britons.

The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson “European” class, though few will say so these days. The Guardian once described Blair as “mystical” and has been true to his “project” of rapacious war. The day after the vote, the columnist Martin Kettle offered a Brechtian solution to the misuse of democracy by the masses. “Now surely we can agree referendums are bad for Britain”, said the headline over his full-page piece. The “we” was unexplained but understood — just as “these people” is understood. “The referendum has conferred less legitimacy on politics, not more,” wrote Kettle. “ … the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again.”

The kind of ruthlessness Kettle longs for is found in Greece, a country now airbrushed. There, they had a referendum and the result was ignored. Like the Labour Party in Britain, the leaders of the Syriza government in Athens are the products of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, groomed in the fakery and political treachery of post-modernism. The Greek people courageously used the referendum to demand their government sought “better terms” with a venal status quo in Brussels that was crushing the life out of their country. They were betrayed, as the British would have been betrayed.

....and finally and possibly most importantly...

On the eve of the referendum, the quisling secretary-general of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering “peace and security” if they voted to leave the EU. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe.

Cheers

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

I was just tying to find some positives, although they are hard to come by

The Labour coup has started. Hillary Benn sacked, shadow Health Secretary resigns. Apparently 80% of the PLP want Corbyn to leave, but he still has party membership support. Besides, who wants another Blairite government?

The problem the PLP has is that for the most part it is completely out of sync with the membership and also the voters. They think they know what the people want, but they don't. Ever since 2000 really this has been the case. If Corbyn does resign, someone else from the left needs to take over, perhaps McDonnell. Although his comments on the IRA may make the Daily Mail mad, he is a smart competent man

The PLP party maybe out of sync with the members but it is the leadership that is most out of touch with Labour voters, especially outside the London bubble. I was watching on my local TV news an MP for a sunderland constituency and she was saying that on the doorstep that while they where Labour voters they would never vote Labour while Corbyn is in charge, lets just hope in vast swathes of the North it is the Lib Dems and not UKIP that are the ones who benefit from it, (these people dont vote Tory)

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

This is awesome! A reader's comment under a pseudonym in the Guardian.

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” … why? why not the formal ones straight away? … he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

....not triggering Article 50 would be awesome for who exactly....well as we have already discussed here it would "save the youth " , who btw don't give a fukc....and it would also save the highly inflated salaries of this corrupt usurious lot who have a lot of dog in this fight....

"Brexit defeated an overwhelming array of what Zygmunt Bauman defined as the global elites of liquid modernity; the City of London, Wall Street, the IMF, the Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), major hedge/investment funds, the whole interconnected global banking system.

The City of London, predictably, voted Remain by over 75%. An overwhelming $2.7 trillion is traded every day in the “square mile”, which employs almost 400,000 people. And it’s not only the square mile, as the City now also includes Canary Wharf (HQ of quite a few big banks) and Mayfair (privileged hang out of hedge funds).

The City of London – the undisputed financial capital of Europe — also manages a whopping $1.65 trillion of client assets, wealth literally from all over the planet. In Treasure Islands, Nicholas Shaxson argues, “financial services companies have flocked to London because it lets them do what they cannot do at home”.

Unbridled deregulation coupled with unrivalled influence on the global economic system amount to a toxic mix. So Brexit may also be interpreted as a vote against corruption permeating England’s most lucrative industry.

Things will change. Drastically. There will be no more “passporting”, by which banks can sell products for all 28 EU members, accessing a $19 trillion integrated economy. All it takes is a HQ in London and a few satellite mini-offices. Passporting will be up for fierce negotiation, as well as what happens to London’s euro-denominated trading floors."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/why-the-uk-said-bye-bye-to-the-eu/

....so yeah lets go to the ramparts and save those poor souls slaving away in the global banking industry working as hard as they do to help the common man in any way they can....

Cheers

The "corrupt usurious lot" contribute well over a hundred billion pounds per year in gross value added to the UK economy. And about 20 billion in tax.

....and lest we forget they were a direct reason to vapourizing how much money in that last melt down ?....and then there is all that lucre that the world's weapons industries pour into people's pockets ( are you good with that as well ?)....

....and the fact remains they are a corrupt usurious lot....if you want to sleep with them that is entirely your prerogative....just mind the fleas and the stench....

....might be a good idea to perhaps get back to wealth creation ( like actually building things ) as opposed to speculative gambling which ultimately is just a road to ruin....

Cheers

Moving part of operations from London wouldn't change the fundamentals of the whole system while loss of tax revenue and wealth creation (like it or not, there is value added in the financial sector) is going to be real.

That's all.

 

[roundabout]

And for a laugh

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-news-room/media-releases/news-from-2016/news-from-june-2016/council-to-seek-urgent-confirmation-from-ministers-on-eu-funding-allocated-to-cornwall/

 

[Amsterhammer]

Oh the irony! The guy who started the second referendum petition did so several weeks ago. He's a Brexiter and assumed that his side would lose!

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Re:

Anyway wouldn't want to be Sky on the roads of France now.

.... ...most excellent point...chapeau...

Cheers

Even as we speak I'm urinating into a bottle for exporting ... big business idea! :lol:

PS - did someone say pyrrhic victory?

 

[del1962]

Re:

Oh the irony! The guy who started the second referendum petition did so several weeks ago. He's a Brexiter and assumed that his side would lose!

Farage himself said if it was a 52-48 split there should be another referendum.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Re:

One of the questions about the Brexit poll results by age is, Why?

us english don't like being told what to do.....most of all by a bureaucratic organization

seemingly beyond our control in brussels ....that's why many chose 'leave'

now i read 'remain' have a monster petition calling for re-run as % voting 'leave'' was

not large enough proportion to be binding....even though smaller % is ok for

general election etc

Mark L

Well, be glad you don't live in a country that has a dictatorship, or one where oppression is forcing people to flee! But I get nobody likes being told what to do.

Apparently it will take some time for the vote to be acted on. I happened to be on an unrelated Vanguard financial website and found this commentary on the near term ramifications of the Brexit vote (not sure how much Vanguard really knows):

First, the result needs to be incorporated into an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty (part of the EU's governing framework), the United Kingdom will then give formal notice to the EU. After that, negotiations will begin on the actual exit terms. Those negotiations can span two years and may be extended further.
LINK: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/Brexit-l-062016

The Vanguard article made a few other interesting observations about the Implications for the U.K. economy:

Estimates of how Brexit will affect the U.K. economy range widely; some are positive, but the majority are negative. A key assumption in any Brexit scenario is what happens to trade agreements. The EU is the United Kingdom's largest trading partner, receiving about half of all U.K. exports. Upon leaving the EU, the United Kingdom will lose its automatic right to the favorable trade terms that EU membership bestows.

Concern about Brexit already led businesses to put hiring and spending plans on hold, and it has decreased merger and acquisition activity. Less favorable trade terms could also discourage foreign investment in the United Kingdom by firms that might otherwise seek a U.K. presence to access European customers.

Immigration policy has been one of the major issues in the Brexit debate. Although it will still be possible after Brexit for EU citizens to work in the United Kingdom, such decisions are likely to rest with the U.K. government—in contrast to currently unrestricted access.

Suffice it to say that a whole host of new U.K. regulatory frameworks need to be developed to conduct business and trade in a post-EU world.

 

[blutto]

....this is absolutely hilarious and bang on....

Nobody expected this to happen – Least of all The Guardian…and the reactions? They have been hysterical, in every sense of the word.

The sheer volume of opinion is evidence of an institutional panic. Polly Toynbee’s reaction, always the paragon of understatement:

“
Catastrophe. Britain has broken apart. An uprising of resentment by the left-behind has torn us in two, a country wrecked by a yawning class divide stretched wider by recession and austerity.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that the referendum had been for turning off the sun, banning talking, or killing the first born son of every family in Britain…rather than a return to a state of affairs that has existed for all but the last 40 years of human history. Such is the level of the destruction.

The Climate is ruined. The FTSE 100 plummeted to levels not seen since last Thursday. The pound is now worth 7 cents less than it was last week. British science is already nearly destroyed. The arts world will regress, and collapse. British stocks crashed…less than half as much as European stocks. The FTSE 100 actually ended the week on a small gain…but ARRGHH! Panic!

But of course, the (as yet totally underwhelming and mostly imaginary) financial costs are nothing compared to the spiritual, moral costs.

“We woke up in a different country”, says Jonathan Freedland, absolutely shocked that 52% of the country should “reject authority” after only a generation or so of being exploited, lied to and suffering a general decline in living standards.

“
Who knows, perhaps the worst effects can be avoided altogether. But we should not be under any illusions. This is not the country it was yesterday. That place has gone for ever.

An assertion that would, perhaps, be greeted with more than a few smiles in many of the places we have recently bombed in the name of protecting “European values”.

I was not aware, until yesterday morning, that more than half of the people of Britain were racists. For all of Britain’s various social problems, I have never observed much in the way of strong racism. Far-right parties like the BNP get almost no traction in elections. There aren’t neo-Nazi marches in London that compare to the ones in Lviv or Berlin.

Nevertheless…apparently,we are now totally controlled by xenophobia. The country is now cruel and racist. Joseph Harker’s column declares:

“
in the wake of the EU referendum people across the UK are fearful of the intolerance that has been unleashed…

Bear in mind this piece was published at 1.37pm yesterday afternoon, literally less than 12 hours after the result was announced. We’ll do Joseph some credit and assume he spent more than forty minutes writing this up – let’s say he started writing at exactly noon. That gives him eight hours to survey these “people across the UK” who, one can only assume, were merely the people on his bus route that morning. He “understands” that the vote wasn’t about race, that people want economic control of their country back…but actually it WAS about race, and we’re all racists.



you’re young and angry about the EU referendum, you’re right to be”

…declares her headline. It is just one article, of many that have appeared all over the media, citing the reported age demographics of the two voting camps. Claiming that “old people” have ruined the futures of the young…because they are old and stupid and racist.


The “old people” being discussed would have been young in the 1960s and 70s. They would be old hippies and baby-boomers. The idea of “grandma being a bit racist in and old-fashioned way”, does not work when today’s grandmas were listening to the Beatles and marching against Vietnam. These “old people” are the generation that voted FOR the EU last time, and now have 40+ years of experience of living with their decision. Do we do them credit, and assume they have changed their minds based on their life experience? Should we respect that 40 years of living and working in this country means people have EARNED their right to be heard? No, we are encouraged to dismiss them and insult their motives

In hedging their bets, should Leave win, the Guardian took up an odd position pre-referendum. Its editorial line became that, perhaps, voting isn’t that democratic. First there was David Mitchell (sensible shirt and neat beard, every inch the Guardianista caricature) arguing that Parliament should decide this issue, not us, because we are too stupid and underqualified. Then there was NatNug, always a source of prime neo-liberal insanity, declaring that “the mob” had too much influence, and that democracy should be about our “elite institutions” telling us what to do. Yes, seriously

https://off-guardian.org/2016/06/25/guardian-watch-insults-fly-in-post-brexit-hysteria/

....pretty nice summation of the story so far...." voting isn't that democratic" indeed....bravo Guardian....good job shilling there...and I can actually remember when that was a paper worth reading....has Murdoch secretly bought it or something...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....and speaking of 2nd referendums...

Well, the Guardian has – finally – acknowledged the reality of the hapless and discredited “2nd referendum petition”, but only after an indecent interval, and when the Telegraph, HuffPo and other mainstream outlets already picked up the story.

And regrettably, they are still doing their best to sell us the flagging narrative of a “grassroots” response. “Overall, close to 2.5m signatures had been garnered from within the UK by Sunday lunchtime, making up an overwhelming proportion of the whole,” reads their last para…

“
……although it’s difficult to tell how many of these were genuine…..”

Hmmm. Sort of makes the first part of that sentence a bit redundant doesn’t it.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, the entire media and establishment have united to try and remove Corbyn before an early election is called and there is even a remote chance of a genuine anti-austerity pro-humanity prime minister in No 10.

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

Well Britain was always one foot in and one foot out, so better now than later.

On the other hand, sure, the EU of bankers and techoncrats sucks, but it should be reformed from the inside, not by bailing, which is kind of spineless. If Britain doesn't need the EU, the opposite needs to hold true (though I'm not sure that it does). The consequences of the one that is, should be counterbalanced by those of the other. London is the world financial center, because it is in Europe. Will it become just another exchange as Goldman Sachs, etc. move their capital to other continental exchanges (if this were the case)? It would be different if say France voted out, but if that were just feasably possible, however remote, the chances have now been enhanced.

And this brings us to the crux of the matter: namely, will Brexit stimulate a recrudescence of petty (and inimical) nationalism that stokes the fire of demagoguery? Does Brexit reinforce EU unity, or precipitate disintegration? In the latter case, how's the world going to look under the neo-impulse of disjunction over integration? The last historical model was Europe of the 20s and 30s, but this is hardly fortuitous.

 

[ebandit]

The fear of the elderly and rural workers prevailed. The gap between those who profit from globalization and those who are the inert recipients of its consequences is too large.

that's a nice cosy response.......academia without the thought

wonder if there are enough rural workers in modern britain?

older voters....grasped opportunity available....

Mark L

 

[ebandit]

i too never expected 'leave' to prevail.......after all....the government...politicians ...experts

were firmly behind 'remain'.......so the people chose otherwise....bravo!

Mark L

 

[wrinklyvet]

Charles Moore in the Telegraph had this lesson for the young, though too late to help them this time around!

Seventy-three per cent of those aged 18 to 24 voted Remain. It is said that this sets the young against the old and cheats the former of their future.

But that 73 per cent, of course, is a percentage only of those who voted. Only 43 per cent of that age cohort did vote. So if you add up the young who voted Leave and the young who did not vote at all, you find that young Remainers were outnumbered roughly two to one. In a democratic system, if you wish to affect your future, you must vote.

This does not seem to be taught in schools any more – and nor is the impressive history of our parliamentary democracy – but it is the key point.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

The fear of the elderly and rural workers prevailed. The gap between those who profit from globalization and those who are the inert recipients of its consequences is too large.

These people's concerns must be listened to and addressed —not by buying their anti-foreigner stance and raising economic barriers, but by doubling efforts to make sure globalisation works for as many people as possible.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

The fear of the elderly and rural workers prevailed. The gap between those who profit from globalization and those who are the inert recipients of its consequences is too large.

that's a nice cosy response.......academia without the thought

wonder if there are enough rural workers in modern britain?

older voters....grasped opportunity available....

Mark L

Thoughtless, aye, well I did pondered a few issues in the subsequent post. Anybody got any ideas? But if you think "bravo" Brexit prevailed, you need to qualify that with the kind of world such an impetus foresees.